Besides, we all know that the new system is heavily based on proving innocence. Innocent until speculated guilty, and all that.
That is a debatable statement, and therefore considered illegal under the new Stop Misinformation Act. I am forwarding this to the Internet Snitch Brigade.
No, the Conservative way would be for the hospital to have the choice to refuse to treat you if you can't pay.
If they couldn't pay, did they say that in advance? What kind of slime-ball would receive medical service and then say: "oh by the way, I don't have any money?"
Unless, of course, you believe that hospital workers are evil for expecting payment for their work.
The question is what are you going to do when oil is permanently above 100USD a barrel and climbing
I will not do anything, but people in the energy market will certainly look to alternative ways to make money. For example, there is a vast amount of oil in Canadian sand that becomes profitable around US $90 dollars a barrel. As prices change to reflect scarcity, markets will find solutions.
"Hate" is a strong word - I don't personally know anyone who "hates" Al Gore. I think he is dishonest, and represents a threat to individual freedom and science, due to his promotion of politicized research, non-scientific alarmism (I like to call it Chicken-Littleism), and government control over energy.
Has he gotten anything that he wouldn't have had anyway with his extensive connections?
People shouldn't "get things" by being politically connected. They should only "get things" through voluntary exchanges in a free-market.
You are assuming it is "either-or": Either proponents of fossil fuel want to protect their financial interests from government intrusions by disproving/downplaying global warming, or green businesses want the government to intrude to get special favors and incentives and grow their financial interests.
In actuality, both are true. For cripes sake, Al Gore is financially involved in several venture capital firms for cap and trade, geothermal energy, and others. GE is set to reap boatloads of government loot from cap and trade, not to mention all the other green initiatives and regulations.
They have failed spectacularly because they have ignored the oil crisis and green issues and have kept on designing large gas guzzlers.
This is definitely NOT true. Gas prices in 2008 and the recent recession only amplified enormous problems that already existed.
Many of the "gas-guzzling" cars are the best-selling American vehicles. Most American auto-maker failures have historically been small cars, which the government forced them to build (CAFE standards).
Moreover, American auto-makers cannot significantly restructure and become more lean and effective, because their rights were taken away with the Wagner act, which prevents firing of union employees and forces them into costly, non-agile business arrangements with those unions.
Zealots, of any sort, can't tell the difference between "knowing" and "believing".
Believing is a form of knowing that lacks certainty. It specifically refers to instances where there is more evidence to examine, or more mental work to reach a firm conclusion.
there's no way we can actually say whether there is or is not a god, but I feel there is none.
You use the word "feel" here as a euphemism for "believing" (I hope), because feelings, i.e., emotions, do not provide any knowledge at all. Emotions are responses, they are not tools of cognition.
1. Knowledge is simply the sum of conclusions you've reached by putting together all the evidence logically. Knowledge is contextual - so you can add to it later if you obtain new evidence. "Knowing something" doesn't mean that you can't eventually obtain new information that changes what you know.
2. God is not a valid, definable concept. Is it a life-form? Is it alive? Dead? Does it have gender? Does it have composition? Where is it? How does it work? You are not supposed to be able to know - because knowing implies reason, which is antithetical to the entire mystical metaphysical basis for god to begin with.
stop pretending you're omniscient: admit you're not atheist, but rather agnostic.
You don't have to be omnisicient, you just need to draw a conclusion based on all the available evidence. That's what it means to "know" something - it means that: based on all the evidence you have, and your ability to put it together logically, you've come to some conclusion. The sum of all those conclusions is what you know.
Someday, you might get new evidence that you have to incorporate with your existing evidence, which might change your conclusions. This does not mean that you originally made an error - it just means that knowledge is contextual. In the context of your original information, you put it together logically to make conclusions, and later you incorporate new knowledge to make new conclusions - which build on the previous.
Just because you can't know everything, for all time, doesn't mean you are helpless and incapable of knowing nothing.
don't think of agnosticism as a middle ground between the states we call "religion" and "atheism." Think of it as a middle ground between the processes of "reasoning" and "faith."
There is a difference between "rationally questioning your beliefs" and agnosticism. Agnosticism says: "After careful thought and consideration, I've decided that I can't decide." It is really a dedication to "fence-sitting".
There's nothing wrong with saying: "I am an atheist, but I have some unresolved questions", or "I am religious, but I'm exploring what it means to be rational", but to say "I'm Agnostic" means: "I refuse to take sides."
But all those high-powered wind turbines are going to cost some very serious cash
If cost were the primary concern, then there would be no reason for the government to make yet further inroads into the control of energy. We have abundant, cheap carbon-based energy, which could be even more abundant and cheap if we were not forcibly prevented from getting at it all.
From a cash standpoint, though... not sure it would be better.
Well the government has poured billions into energy, and still it is definitely not cheaper.
If cost were the primary concern, then there would be no reason for the government to make yet further inroads into the control of energy. We have abundant, cheap carbon-based energy, which could be even more abundant and cheap if we were not forcibly prevented from getting at it all.
I'm not familiar with the history of the various Indian populations, but all humans have the same rights - you don't have to happen to live under a government that protects them to have them.
That's just one example of a large area of law dealing with "how land can be used", which would include all sorts of things, like businesses that emit loud sounds or disturbing smells. It can be broad enough to cover things like "neighborhood associations", or all sorts of usage restrictions.
I won't try to demonstrate how private property rights and contract law can deal with all these situations. Suffice to say that if people don't want to live next to fish marts or nuclear waste disposals, there are already plenty of ways that large areas of land can be placed under land-use restrictions, and all without any sort of centralized government control.
Free-market solutions are exactly what government planners claim are impossible. "Free people cannot solve problems, only I can solve it for you, by controlling you and substituting my judgment for yours." It really is a Kook-Aid.
But if pumping Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere is even partially responasible for flooding, desertification, and extreme weather then what of those who lose property or suffer because of it?
I would say simply that taking away our freedoms in an attempt to change the climate would be:
1. Much more disastrous to humans, economically, and
2. A lack of freedom makes people less able to cope with natural problems, since people can only act by government permission, instead of acting freely, by right.
I don't subscribe to your idea that we are causing our own death and destruction. Besides, whatever harm you claim human's are doing to themselves - taking away individual's liberties and concentrating power in the hand's of power-lusters will not do anything but ultimately destroy our way of life, as it has been slowly doing for the last century, or so.
I don't like regulations in general, many are advocated by big businesses to keep out competition among other things, but without some there is no way to protect some who are harmed.
Life and property is already protected under law - regulations do not change that. All regulations do is substitute the will of a bureaucrat for the will of private citizens. Regulations also often take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach: you have to spend a lot of time and money proving you are innocent.
I appreciate your discussion - I know there must be something I agree about you with, because I added you to my friends list sometime in the past.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, we all know that the new system is heavily based on proving innocence. Innocent until speculated guilty, and all that.
That is a debatable statement, and therefore considered illegal under the new Stop Misinformation Act. I am forwarding this to the Internet Snitch Brigade.
The true indicator of Microsoft considering itself to have real competition is when it starts pricing its products competitively.
If Microsoft products weren't priced competitively, they wouldn't be in business.
No, the Conservative way would be for the hospital to have the choice to refuse to treat you if you can't pay.
If they couldn't pay, did they say that in advance? What kind of slime-ball would receive medical service and then say: "oh by the way, I don't have any money?"
Unless, of course, you believe that hospital workers are evil for expecting payment for their work.
The question is what are you going to do when oil is permanently above 100USD a barrel and climbing
I will not do anything, but people in the energy market will certainly look to alternative ways to make money. For example, there is a vast amount of oil in Canadian sand that becomes profitable around US $90 dollars a barrel. As prices change to reflect scarcity, markets will find solutions.
"Hate" is a strong word - I don't personally know anyone who "hates" Al Gore. I think he is dishonest, and represents a threat to individual freedom and science, due to his promotion of politicized research, non-scientific alarmism (I like to call it Chicken-Littleism), and government control over energy.
Has he gotten anything that he wouldn't have had anyway with his extensive connections?
People shouldn't "get things" by being politically connected. They should only "get things" through voluntary exchanges in a free-market.
Nothing wrong with investing his own money, as long as he receives zero special favors, incentives, or franchises from the government.
That is debatable, but also irrelevant as to whether green business seek to leverage government power and control to help them rake in the cash.
You are assuming it is "either-or":
Either proponents of fossil fuel want to protect their financial interests from government intrusions by disproving/downplaying global warming,
or green businesses want the government to intrude to get special favors and incentives and grow their financial interests.
In actuality, both are true. For cripes sake, Al Gore is financially involved in several venture capital firms for cap and trade, geothermal energy, and others. GE is set to reap boatloads of government loot from cap and trade, not to mention all the other green initiatives and regulations.
They have failed spectacularly because they have ignored the oil crisis and green issues and have kept on designing large gas guzzlers.
This is definitely NOT true. Gas prices in 2008 and the recent recession only amplified enormous problems that already existed.
Many of the "gas-guzzling" cars are the best-selling American vehicles. Most American auto-maker failures have historically been small cars, which the government forced them to build (CAFE standards).
Moreover, American auto-makers cannot significantly restructure and become more lean and effective, because their rights were taken away with the Wagner act, which prevents firing of union employees and forces them into costly, non-agile business arrangements with those unions.
And who made the roads those cars will run on? The free market?
Who built the pyramids in ancient egypt?
Clearly only Totalitarian Theocracies are capable of producing such grand structures, using slave labor.
Free will is the ability to focus your consciousness, or relax it. It is an epistemological function, and it controls your awareness.
That you can change your focus can be determined by introspection.
This is not a proof, just an observation
Zealots, of any sort, can't tell the difference between "knowing" and "believing".
Believing is a form of knowing that lacks certainty. It specifically refers to instances where there is more evidence to examine, or more mental work to reach a firm conclusion.
there's no way we can actually say whether there is or is not a god, but I feel there is none.
You use the word "feel" here as a euphemism for "believing" (I hope), because feelings, i.e., emotions, do not provide any knowledge at all. Emotions are responses, they are not tools of cognition.
Atheism is faith in that the unknown is not true.
Definition: Faith is the belief in something without reason, or in spite of reason.
Ergo, if you use your faculty of reason to become an atheist, it is not an act of faith.
Nobody knows whether there is a god.
I know there is no god, for a couple reasons:
1. Knowledge is simply the sum of conclusions you've reached by putting together all the evidence logically. Knowledge is contextual - so you can add to it later if you obtain new evidence. "Knowing something" doesn't mean that you can't eventually obtain new information that changes what you know.
2. God is not a valid, definable concept. Is it a life-form? Is it alive? Dead? Does it have gender? Does it have composition? Where is it? How does it work? You are not supposed to be able to know - because knowing implies reason, which is antithetical to the entire mystical metaphysical basis for god to begin with.
stop pretending you're omniscient: admit you're not atheist, but rather agnostic.
You don't have to be omnisicient, you just need to draw a conclusion based on all the available evidence. That's what it means to "know" something - it means that: based on all the evidence you have, and your ability to put it together logically, you've come to some conclusion. The sum of all those conclusions is what you know.
Someday, you might get new evidence that you have to incorporate with your existing evidence, which might change your conclusions. This does not mean that you originally made an error - it just means that knowledge is contextual. In the context of your original information, you put it together logically to make conclusions, and later you incorporate new knowledge to make new conclusions - which build on the previous.
Just because you can't know everything, for all time, doesn't mean you are helpless and incapable of knowing nothing.
don't think of agnosticism as a middle ground between the states we call "religion" and "atheism." Think of it as a middle ground between the processes of "reasoning" and "faith."
There is a difference between "rationally questioning your beliefs" and agnosticism. Agnosticism says: "After careful thought and consideration, I've decided that I can't decide." It is really a dedication to "fence-sitting".
There's nothing wrong with saying: "I am an atheist, but I have some unresolved questions", or "I am religious, but I'm exploring what it means to be rational", but to say "I'm Agnostic" means: "I refuse to take sides."
Just my opinion...
Aren't we all deterministic automotons governed by the laws of physics?
Why do determinists so frequently choose to ask questions?
it looks like we have a long way to go.
Even worse, we are going in the wrong direction.
The article, as well as the example you cited, are a dangerous trend toward censorship.
Thanks!
But all those high-powered wind turbines are going to cost some very serious cash
If cost were the primary concern, then there would be no reason for the government to make yet further inroads into the control of energy. We have abundant, cheap carbon-based energy, which could be even more abundant and cheap if we were not forcibly prevented from getting at it all.
From a cash standpoint, though... not sure it would be better.
Well the government has poured billions into energy, and still it is definitely not cheaper.
If cost were the primary concern, then there would be no reason for the government to make yet further inroads into the control of energy. We have abundant, cheap carbon-based energy, which could be even more abundant and cheap if we were not forcibly prevented from getting at it all.
I'm not familiar with the history of the various Indian populations, but all humans have the same rights - you don't have to happen to live under a government that protects them to have them.
Can I open a toxic waste dump next door to you?
That's just one example of a large area of law dealing with "how land can be used", which would include all sorts of things, like businesses that emit loud sounds or disturbing smells. It can be broad enough to cover things like "neighborhood associations", or all sorts of usage restrictions.
I won't try to demonstrate how private property rights and contract law can deal with all these situations. Suffice to say that if people don't want to live next to fish marts or nuclear waste disposals, there are already plenty of ways that large areas of land can be placed under land-use restrictions, and all without any sort of centralized government control.
Free-market solutions are exactly what government planners claim are impossible. "Free people cannot solve problems, only I can solve it for you, by controlling you and substituting my judgment for yours." It really is a Kook-Aid.
But if pumping Greenhouse Gases into the atmosphere is even partially responasible for flooding, desertification, and extreme weather then what of those who lose property or suffer because of it?
I would say simply that taking away our freedoms in an attempt to change the climate would be:
1. Much more disastrous to humans, economically, and
2. A lack of freedom makes people less able to cope with natural problems, since people can only act by government permission, instead of acting freely, by right.
I don't subscribe to your idea that we are causing our own death and destruction. Besides, whatever harm you claim human's are doing to themselves - taking away individual's liberties and concentrating power in the hand's of power-lusters will not do anything but ultimately destroy our way of life, as it has been slowly doing for the last century, or so.
I don't like regulations in general, many are advocated by big businesses to keep out competition among other things, but without some there is no way to protect some who are harmed.
Life and property is already protected under law - regulations do not change that. All regulations do is substitute the will of a bureaucrat for the will of private citizens. Regulations also often take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach: you have to spend a lot of time and money proving you are innocent.
I appreciate your discussion - I know there must be something I agree about you with, because I added you to my friends list sometime in the past. :)
If it's cost effective to make a home more efficient, then the owners should do it themselves.
I should not be forced to pay for my neighbor's efficiency problems.